May 14 2007
What happened to tolerance for Christians?
[From Christian Post]
A nearly-completed $27 million museum that will showcase the literal biblical account of creation has been drawing enough criticism to spur several opponents into slating protests against the museum on the day of its opening. Set to open on Memorial Day, the Creation Museum, built just outside Cincinnati, is trying to give an alternative to evolutionary models of science. Challengers are calling the museum âfantasy,â however, and have expressed fear that their children may be influenced by what the museum teaches.
“Many educated humans realize this is a myth,” said Edwin Kagin, a Union attorney and the national legal director of American Atheists, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. “Myths aren’t necessarily untrue, but they aren’t literal, either.”
Read about it here.
[From me]
What happened to tolerance? It is OK for secular humanists to shove Evolution down our throats like it is a fact. It is a theory–a bad one at that.  It takes more faith to be believe in evolution than it does Creationism.   Give me a break. I sure didn’t evolve from an Ape.  People will come up with anything so they don’t have to give God credit.
Why would other believers be protesting this museum? If another Christian wants to believe they once swung from the trees–whatever. But why go “protest” other believers beliefs. We have too many people dying and going to hell than to fight with one another.
What do you think?
55 responses so far
I think Christians should be able to have a reasoned and healthy debate about young earth vs. old earth views. But I view both as being under the umbrella of orthodox Christianity (sadly, that view will get nasty comments from both sides).
I do think many Christians haven’t thought through and researched the Darwinian evolution model enough to understand its flaws. They are afraid of being mocked, so they shut up in what Philip Johnson (an outstanding Intelligent Design leader) called a “dignified surrender.” That is unfortunate.
That life evolved is a fact. How life evolved is a theory. That is an important distinction. The “theory of evolution” is not, as you seem to believe, the simple idea that evolution happens. That is merely an observation of fact that you yourself could make if only you could be bothered; these facts are easily independently verified. The “theory of evolution” uses genetics and the environment to explain how the evolution we observe could have happened. If you think its such poppycock, all you have to do is come up with an explanation that fits the observed facts.
I’m sure you choose not to believe the theory OR the facts, but that is your inalienable right for some reason. The facts of it are, you didn’t just evolve from an ape, you still are one! (Unfortunately, word definition isn’t like science; you can’t just come up with a better definition and expect everyone else to use it. You’re stuck being an ape.) It sure sucks that humans aren’t the special little darlings of the Universe. I guess people will come up with anything so they don’t have to face that. On the other hand, it’s Monday, too. I think that’s much worse.
Aside from all the misinformation you bless us with, I think you are confusing tolerance with acceptance or love or something. Tolerance doesn’t mean one loves you or respects you. It means one tolerates you; one doesn’t punch you, one doesn’t try to drive you out of town with a lynch mob. It certainly doesn’t mean one has to let any fool thing said in a public space go unchallenged.
Geekwad,
What “facts?” Evolution takes more faith to believe then Creationism. Where is the missing link?
It only takes faith if you refuse to educate yourself. Please do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
It is a fact that sexual reproduction does not produce clones. It is a fact that the offspring of sexual reproduction occasionally has genes that neither parent has. It is a fact that there were no birds or mammals about 250 million years ago. It is a fact there were no flowers before about 145 million years ago. It is a fact that at one time in your life, you had gills. All around you are facts indicating that evolution has occurred, and that support various theories of evolution. You can validly argue that evolution is guided by God, but to flatly state that evolution did not occur on Earth is willful ignorance and pure wishful thinking.
I’m not sure what you’re after with your missing link comment. Are you complaining that we don’t know the entire genealogy of humanity back to the most recent common ancestor? Or are you saying that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence? A theory only has to be consistent with all known facts. It can suppose additional “facts” that haven’t been discovered yet. Future evidence will either disprove or corroborate the theory. So far, contradictory evidence has not come, and every day more of “assumed” (or rather, predicted) facts turn up. If the best you can say is effectively, “we don’t know everything,” it isn’t any sort of argument. You need to be able to say, “If X is true, then Y cannot be true. One can demonstrate to themselves that X is true by doing Z.”
Evangelical Christians taking any part of this debate is a little like a guy taking a switch to a gunfight. Based on the churches I’ve been a part of, it’s just too easy for us to be anti-intellectual anyway. The evolutionists best arguments to me are my appendix and my wisdom teeth.
Couple that with the idea that creationism is not a major doctrine, and I don’t see what the fuss is about.
I have too much trouble trying to live up to the example of Jesus to waste energy debating evolution.
I agree that tolerance is the issue here. What I see, though, is that it is lacking on both sides of the debate. Because people have decided to hang their hat on the nail of evolutionism or creationism makes their viewpoint deep-seated and dear. In so doing, both groups have a tendency to jump head-long into (over)heated debate whenever the topic is mentioned. Are we not going to allow our friends to believe differently than we do (even if they are wrong)? Will we refuse to examine facts or purported facts because we have decided the matter already?
I’ve seen the theory grand evolution (change from species to species) taught as truth rather than theory. I’ve also heard dear friends lambast and belittle others because they refuse to read the Bible through their same filter. The debate turns from debate to red-faced argument. I can espouse the faith-based belief in creation (and even preach it) without resorting to name-calling of those who disagree with me. Would I wish for others to believe as I do because I believe I’m right? Sure. Shall I become intolerant and belligerent toward those who don’t believe like me? I pray not. I pray, instead that my thoughtful discussion with them might give them pause to consider my position.
If I’m right, then I should be confident in my belief and graciously approach those who disagree with me.
If I am wrong, then I would expect the same respect from those who would try to convince me of my error.
onelittleman: That is a poor reason to believe in evolution. The point cannot be substantiated. It’s a matter of you were told in school this was true and you bought it. I didn’t. And I wasn’t even a Christian then. I did n’t buy the point in college either.
The point supposedly being that we needed our appendix and wisdom teeth in the beginning but no longer need them as the evolutionary process continued. That just is not a plausible explanation to me. God created my wisdom teeth and my appendix. End of story. That I can buy.
Onelittleman,
I have no problem if someone wants to believe a fable. I’m just saying where is the tolerance of our beliefs?
Geekwad,
You really expect me to take the word of wikipedia? Show me scientific proof.
Benjie: I see debating this topic a form of giving the gospel. Many have come to salvation through debating. While looking in the Bible to refute evolution they have instead come to Christ. Also I do not mistake passion for a view for anger. I believe debate is necessary in order to ask those who believe in evolution to prove factually what they are saying. It is easy to espouse the facts of evolution, it’s very hard when called upon to prove it.
I am required to tolerate people, not their beliefs. The Charter I am protected and bound by says that everyone can believe any damn thing they want, but it doesn’t say I have to like it. I think your country’s constitutional law is similar in that regard. You can believe up is down if you want. However, just because someone believes something is no reason to tolerate it. Humans are friggin’ INSANE; at least one of them presently believes any idiotic thing you can imagine, probably out of sheer stubbornness.
You would disagree that widespread belief in Creationism is harmful, but between us I think we could come up with some beliefs we agree clearly are harmful. I think harmful beliefs should not be tolerated. Do you agree with that?
If you do agree, then the argument becomes whether or not Creationism is a belief worthy of tolerance. That has not been addressed.
No, I expected you (foolishly, of course) to use it to find trusted references. You know, do research. You’re not getting any more facts until you’ve finished what’s on your plate already.
The first rule of debate is to define the terms. The flurry of comments so far reflect that no one has yet described what they mean by “evolution.”
We do indeed see “micro-evolution” all around us everyday whether we realize that or not. Plants adapt to changes in climate, etc., and once small viruses have grown into pandemic threats. But genetically we do not find change from one specie to another in such instances.
Ah, yes. Now we can talk about macro-evolution: the change from specie to specie. Tell me please Geekwad, when I had gills, was I a fish then? Of course not! From the moment of conception I was 100% human with 100% human DNA and simply in a stage of growth on my way to adulthood. That is what you call a “fact.” That is not “evolution” my friend. To believe that cats turn into dogs or that apes turn into people is utter nonsense. We should all have enough sense to know the difference. You just try to show me an example of macro-evolution. It doesn’t exist.
And since Geekwad believes the earth is millions of years old, maybe he would also care to explain why the oceans’ salt levels are so low after millions of years of evaporation? If you were correct, we could practically walk on the Pacific or Atlantic oceans. Or maybe explain why the fantastically old moon has only inches of space dust on its surface instead of several feet?
And to OneLittleMan: To say that the Biblical creation account is not a major tenet of the Christian faith is a tremedous failure to recognize the doctrine of sin and failure to understand our relationship with God. If we’ve only just evolved, who needs Jesus anyway?
Geekwad,
I’m called by my Charter “THE BIBLE” to love everyone. You can call me names and cuss at me all you want. I still value you and your opinion. I just disagree.
In the beginning God…..
If you can believe the first four words of the bible, the rest is easy. : )
This may help
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
Jay — Yes I can, I think.
I have not seen that salt question before. However, the earth (as far as water, salt, and human timespans are concerned) is a closed system. The hydrological cycle has been concentrating minerals in the oceans for roughly four billion years. However, no new water or salt has been added to the system. The obvious answer to why the oceans don’t get saltier is that the system has reached an equilibrium; as much salt is being removed from the ocean as is being added to it. What is the counterargument that I sense you husbanding away to whip out at the most devastating moment? There must be one, for such a bizarre set-up.
As for the dust on the moon, at one time that was a serious question. NASA had no idea what the composition of the surface would be when they started planning the moon landing. Some feared that the regolith would not be able to support the lander and it would be swallowed up by the dust, never to be seen again. Fortunately, there have been about two generations since then. I see you haven’t been following along in all that time, so I’ll bring you up to date.
As it turns out, the surface of the moon IS covered with a thick layer of fine dust. It is 15m thick in places, and averages 5m, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding. (Heiken et al (1991) Lunar Sourcebook, a user’s guide to the Moon. New York: Cambridge University Press. 736p.) Fortunately, the dust turned out to be firm enough to support the lander, astronauts and other vehicles.
Your comments on micro and macro evolution are a complete non-starter. Those terms were invented by creationists to reframe the argument, after they realized that evolution is patently visible everywhere you look. It is a form of equivocation. But, in the interest of entertaining me this afternoon, perhaps you would care to tell me what you think prevents “micro evolution” from becoming “macro evolution” given enough time. (If it is that “5000 years hasn’t been enough time yet”, I will feel both disappointed and vindicated. That will be an interesting sensation.)
Kevin — So you have no comment on whether all beliefs should be tolerated. Or whether Creationism is worthy of tolerance. I cannot say I am surprised.
I’m getting fed up. I’m starting to think I will not see an actual argument on this blog, which is what I’m here for. Instead, I get the same logical fallacies over and over.
* Ad hominem; attack the source. “You expect me to read wikipedia?” How about you argue against the points raised on the page, instead of against the page’s URL?
Which is never far from it’s opposite twin:
* Appeal to authority. “God says!” Not good enough, unless God deigns to explain his argument.
* Anecdotal evidence. “My aunt was visited by an angel!” “I felt the power of Christ.”
* Argumentum ad populum; the bandwagon fallacy. How wrong can history’s billions of Christians have been? Completely wrong, that’s how wrong.
* Equivocation. “Yes, but that’s not what a True Christian would say.” “I didn’t make a choice; someone chose for me.” “I don’t hate X, I love them. Which is why I hate it when…”
* Spurious relationships. “Christians believe in God. Christians have values. Therefore, belief in God and only belief in God creates values.” Bzzt, wrong. (There was also a faulty assumption in there, have your kids try and spot it for family fun!)
I mean, holy cow, I have people presenting me with Pascal’s Wager. (”What if you’re wrong?”) That’s a chestnut so old, there is an entire logical fallacy named for Pascal!
Mark Twain (luminant thinker that he was) advises never to argue with a fool as they’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. You seem unwilling to let me drag you down from divine inspiration to earthly argument. Is it unreasonable for me to expect religious people to know and respect the difference between stating an argument and stating a belief? Am I to take it that tools like argument and logic simply don’t work when talking about things people consider religious? If that is so, then what does that leave? Shouting, I guess.
âMany educated humans realize this is a myth,â said Edwin Kagin, a Union attorney and the national legal director of American Atheists, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. âMyths arenât necessarily untrue, but they arenât literal, either.â
hmm…I don’t believe this Kagin individual exists. How do we know this individual really is an attorney. I haven’t seen this individual personally nor have I heard any stories about this individual - so im going to conclude that this individual does not exist.
I have been thinking about this and I am going to side with Kevin on this one. No, I don’t believe (and he knows it) in a literal interpretation of Genesis; however, I see no reason to protest those who do. This is their money and time. No one is forcing anyone to attend the exhibit. Tolerance and communication are a two way street.
Rather than focus on what divides us in Genesis, why on earth can’t we focus on what unites us? What does the story tell us about God, about our response to His love and care? What about how we are too limited to get to choose what is good and evil?
I personally don’t care one way or the other about a literal Adam & Eve, what I do care about is how the communion humanity once had with the Divine was broken, and how God reaches out His hand in love to us. Surely we can do no less for one another.
Geekwad,
I’m for free thinking. People are free to be wrong. You still have not shown me any proof of man coming from an APE (Show me an APE MAN) I really don’t care anyway. I choose to believe in Creationism because I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. But I can get along with those who don’t.
MIT is right. Why protest this. If you don’t agree then don’t go.
Geekwad,
I believe your conduct proves Rick Warren right that most atheists are just plain angry. I believe that most of the shouting comes from your side of the argument. If anything remotely challenges your “faith” in your “religion” (atheistism), you guys just plug your ears, yell and attack. I’ve personally found that unless the atheist is truly being drawn by the Holy Spirit, that trying to reason or appeal with the said atheist is like talking to a brick wall, everything bounces off of it and none is heard.
2 Timothy 2:23-26
Refuse to get involved in inane (foolish, empty, void, lacking sense, insignificant) discussions; they always end up in fights. God’s servant must not be argumentative, but a gentle listener and a teacher who keeps cool, working firmly but patiently with those who refuse to obey. (to submit or conform in action to some guiding principle, impulse, one’s conscience, etc.).
You never know how or when God might sober them up with a change of heart and a turning to the truth, enabling them to escape the Devil’s trap, where they are caught and held captive, forced to run his errands.
Kevin — If you want to see an ape man, all you have to do is look in a mirror. (Or out the window — it’s nothing personal you understand.) Homo Sapiens is a member of the Hominidae family, that is, the “great apes”. It’s amusing to try to interpret, “I did not evolve from an ape,” when an ape says it. Does that mean the ape thinks he was created through abiogenesis?
If the fossil record ( http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/fosrec.html ), anthropological archeology ( http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ ), and the obvious genetic relationships between humans and other extant apes ( http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/mg18725153.200-chimps-and-us–it-is-the-differences-that-count.html ) is not sufficient evidence for you, I don’t know what else to say. Perhaps I can pose a question you put to me once. What would it take to convince you? Would anything short of a burning bush do it? It would indeed be a curious coincidence if your proof of evolution and my proof of God turned out to be the same thing.
Why protest this? A completely valid question. After all, you don’t see people picketing out front of the Time Cube guy’s compound, and he says the earth is a four-sided cube. People say crazy things all the time, and the world keeps spinning. So what’s the big deal about this?
The big deal is just how big this deal is. Twenty-seven million dollars is a small hint. This is not fringe Time Cube craziness. This is roaring, full-throttle, world-shaping, mainstream craziness. This is a particular flavour of anti-intellectualism that infests all levels of the most powerful government on the planet. It is a self-deceit that is cherished by the same people who decide which scientific issues get financed, and which get buried. This big deal is a great big deal.
Rob — You’d be angry, too. I hope you are not accusing me of “plugging my ears”. If you are, you’d better back that up with some examples. The yelling I guess I have to wear, though I really try not to.
Geekwad,
I don’t see any apes. I’m not protesting anything. I’m saying protesting the Creation Museum is stupid. If you don’t like it then don’t go.
I think MIT’s point that we as Christians should focus on what unites us rather than what divides us is incredibly prescient. I think the idea of a creationism theme park is a little silly, but I’m not going to go out and protest it. I can understand, however, why someone would be deeply offended by such a place if it violated his or her deepest sense of the meaning of truth or reason.
That said, I’m going to come to Geekwad’s defense, at least in a limited sense. Geekwad has pointed out some important things that those of us who call ourselves Christians would do well to remember: that most Christians who argue about evolution don’t actually understand the theory, that bad argumentation is a negative reflection on God’s truth, and that you have to be on the same page with someone before you can have a truly productive discussion.
When I was a teenager, our youth ministers spent years trying to convince us to argue that evolution didn’t happen or that one couldn’t be a Christian if one didn’t believe in a literal six-day creation. Somewhere along the way, they lost me, because fighting about evolution just seemed so far from the message of what Jesus was talking about. Like MIT, I’m just not worried about it, and it seems like there’s a lot of unnecessary anger spewed at those who disagree with a cultural understanding of the Biblical account of creation.
Geekwad, you should know that there are plenty of Christians who read Genesis not as a scientific or literal historical document, but as a poetic narrative about God’s involvement in the world. Many. many Christians see no tension in simultaneously believing that there is a God and that there are irrefutable principles of scientific reason.
TIA,
I agree with you. The point of this post was why protest the museum? I don’t believe in Evolution but I really don’t care. It isn’t going to ruin my belief system one way or another. I believe God created the world. If He chose to do it using some sort of Evolution OK. I don’t believe that but if I found that to be true it isn’t going to rock my world.
The only thing I care about is that Jesus died for my sins and because I trust in Him I am going to heaven.
Let me begin by answering directly Bro. Kevin’s question in this entry. If person X wants to build a museum celebrating Y (anything in the world you can think of), as long as they raise their own money to do it, I have no problem with it. If somebody wants to build a bigfoot museum or a ufo museum, or a jfk cia/cuban/mafia conspiracy museum or a agriculture museum or a football museum then they are certainly entitled to do so. However, other folks also should be able to protest the museum if they want. That’s kind of what America is about right? Suppose that person X wanted to start a museum claiming that Hitler’s holocaust was a myth cooked up as a Jewish conspiracy for world domination, then it shouldn’t surprise anyone if the Anti-Defamation League showed up on opening day to protest it.
I like reading Geek, and he makes a difficult point to refute.
I would dumb down some of what I think he’s saying (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) and make an application that I don’t think the anti-evolution crowd will be able to accept.
I would probably distinguish between little e evolution and big E evolution. We see examples of little e evolution every day in microbiology. Bacteria that were thought to be no longer a problem due to anti-biotics introduced 50ish years ago are now becoming very dangerous because they have evolved to a point that the drugs are less effective. Any number of our people we visit in hospitals run the risk of a drug resistent strain of staph. So as a treatment plan, doctors are coming up with new combinations of anti-biotics and new anti-biotics. We accept these treatment programs without question, even though they are based on little e evolution. Evangelicals accept without question modern medicine which accepts as factual little e evolution. As an aside, I think it’s odd that evangelical Christianity which borrows heavily from the rationalism of the enlightenment has become so hostile to the scientific method, even though we employ it in our preaching on a weekly basis.
The problem arises in big E evolution. We don’t like to think we’re monkeys. So we have museums with dinosaur tracks next to human tracks and all sorts of other things to suggest the earth is 4-6,000 years old. Now perhaps I’m missing the entire point, but it seems to me that two things are operating here.
1. Jesus came and died for all people, regardless or what our origins are. It doesn’t matter if we didn’t all start out looking like we look now, Jesus still came for us. It doesn’t matter if it all began 4,000 years ago looking exactly like we look now, Jesus came for us.
2. It seems peculiar to me that as evangelicals we seem to miss the point that God seems to be redeeming the entire creation. In Romans 8, Paul seems to talk about how the entire creation anticipates the redeeming action of God at some future time.
But again, I think evangelicals are bringing switches to a gunfight. We have more important things to be about.
and apparently some HTML codes are disabled….
I meant to underline innane and obey.
Geekwad, What is there to argue about? C-mon, really.
Are you asking questions because you are curious? Are you contemplating a relationship with Jesus Christ or Are you merely seeking someone’s temper so that you can point and go, “Ah-ha! there is not a real Christian among the lot of you all!”
We already have an accuser of the bretheren. Why do we need another?
I very much doubt that I’ll ever go to this museum, but if they want to spend their money on it, it’s OK with me. However, I will get into the “fight” when someone tells me that I have to believe that way, that I can no longer be a Baptist, or my church part of the SBC if I do. Until then: more power to ‘em. But as time permits, I will enjoy the give-and-take of honest debate on this and other subjects. After all–according to the Bible, Truth sometimes comes out of such give-and-take.
By the way: I too would affirm that the Bible, in its original autographs (the standard disclaimer) is inerrant. At the same time, I am not a creationist, at least as I normally hear that term used.
And Geekwad: someone, if I read them correctly, imp-lied that you are angry. You don’t come off that way to me. I enjoy your comments.
John Fariss
onelittleman,
I’m just not for protests. In fact, I’m for boycotting boycotts and protests. They do no good in my opinion.
Geekwad,
I don’t think you are angry either.
Geekwad,
Wow. A blistering dissent.
(Hold on, I’m taking a deep breath.)
1) I defined my view on “evolution,” which you simply labeled as “invented by creationists” and then quickly dismissed my view. No factual counter-argument. You simply persist in confusing the two concepts. But the “evolution” we see “everywhere” is not specie to specie.
2) The classic reply to defend macro-evolution: “We need more time!” Well, if you haven’t heard already, most scientists agree that we are all out of time. Sorry. I guess we’ll never know about macro-evolution? (Isn’t that strange that fire-and-brimstone preachers are not the only ones declaring the near end of the world? It’s scientists too! It’s pretty obvious that the world is not evolving—it’s falling apart! (Enter, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.) Now, IF we did have another 100 billion years, cats would still not turn into dogs or vice versa. In fact, there would be only cats and no dogs! Survival of the fittest! (That’s for all the cat lovers out there.)
Okay, where was I? Oh yes. . .
3) Wrong again my friend. The salt and mineral levels of the sea are actually increasing at calculable rates as they always have. There is no equilibrium. Just ask the marine biologists and whale and dolphin folks who are very concerned about the steady rise in salt and mineral levels. (See, no bizzare set-up.)
4) Based on a multi-billion (million?) year old universe, NASA absolutely feared losing the lander. But they were wrong. Thank goodness for a very young universe though because the dust wasn’t deep at all! (So we agree on something!) You see, the space dust levels on the moon also increase at calculable levels like salt and minerals in the sea. Multiply the current calculations to account for accumulations over time and this old world starts looking pretty young by evolutionary comparison.
Finally, I trust that you are having lots of interesting sensations!
Take care.
It’s worth mentioning a belief in the “inerrant word of God” does not demand that one adhere to Creationism. Folks forget that conservative evangelicals often define “inerrancy” differently. One can safely argue that evolutionary theory is compatible with traditional Christian orthodoxy. Some evangelicals have been doing this for decades.
I agree that the museum is silly. And I understand the protesters concerns. But, we all have to pick our battles. This isn’t a battle that I think is worth fighting. However, admittedly - I’m no science buff. I’ve read Ronald Numbers and William Dembski. Never again.
I do like your attitude Kevin. Evolution or no evolution, my faith is solid too.
It’s worth mentioning a belief in the “inerrant word of God” does not demand that one adhere to Creationism.
Folks forget that conservative evangelicals often define “inerrancy” differently. One can safely argue that evolutionary theory is compatible with traditional Christian orthodoxy. Some evangelicals have been doing this for decades.
I agree that the museum is silly. And I understand the protesters concerns. But, we all have to pick our battles. This isn’t a battle that I think is worth fighting. However, admittedly - I’m no science buff. I’ve read Ronald Numbers and William Dembski. Never again.
I do like your attitude Kevin. Evolution or no evolution, my faith is solid too.
A-men one little man. We have much more important things to do and hanging out here to discuss with an athiest why all arguments that disagree with his secular god-less perspective are fallicies.
We are to be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. We are not to be about convincing why all the other answers are wrong. Lets let our light so shine before men, that they may see our good works and glorify our Father in heaven. It isn’t our responsibility if others do not like the answer given, or want to argue endlessly over minutia points of scientific data that do nothing more that only fuel more discussions for the sake of argument. How does that make for peace?
If Geekwad wants to find out the reason for the hope we have in God, and if he has the ears to hear, then let him hear what the Spirit of God says.
The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats - Matthew 25:31-46
======================================
âWhen the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy[c] angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, âCome, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.â
37 âThen the righteous will answer Him, saying, âLord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?â 40 And the King will answer and say to them, âAssuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.â
41 âThen He will also say to those on the left hand, âDepart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.â
44 âThen they also will answer Him,[d] saying, âLord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?â 45 Then He will answer them, saying, âAssuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.â 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.â
===========
The only difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did, and didn’t do.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
One thing I have observed as a “lurker” on this blog is a classic example of why the Bible tells us not to cast our pearls before swine, and that the gospel is foolishness to those who don’t believe.
BDW, I’m curious about why you say “never again” re: Dembski!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWyMBnfjQKI]
oops that didn’t work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWyMBnfjQKI
I love you scarheel yeah!!!
By the way: Athiests love to think we’re calling them pigs when they hear us quote that verse. This however by no means implies we think Geekwad is a pig, it just means he doesn’t understand the things we believe.
Could have easily been do not throw your car keys to your parakeet…. Something we believe is so valuable has no worth to someone who cannot comprehend…unless your car keys are shiny…and your parakeet likes shiney stuff….. oh man I am getting a headache…*
laff
I think your point about tolerance is well taken.
Regardless of the content of the museum, I don’t get why people think they must “protest” what is inside. The Mormons have opened countless temples around the country, and even though I believe Mormonism is a cult, a false religion, and not beneficial to the spiritual condition of human beings who enter it, I don’t feel the need to protest the opening of their temples.
Within a two mile radius of my house, there is a Buddhist temple, two different kinds of Islamic mosques, and a Hindu temple. I don’t believe those religions are a pathway to God, but I didn’t protest the construction of the buildings, or their opening. In this country, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are cherished, inalienable rights. People have the right to be Islamic, or Buddhist or Hindu, and they also have the right to be Christian, whether they are Theistic Evolutionists or Biblical Creationists. Why protest the opening of a museum that expresses someone’s beliefs? You have the right not to enter the door if you choose.
Lee,
Freedom of religion, speech and assembly are pesky things.
In another light, Christians raise cain about all sorts of things in movies, on TV or on the radio when all they have to do is turn the channel.
Hi, Jay.
You misunderstood me. Populations have become divided and diverged until they could no longer crossbreed hundreds of thousands if not millions of times. I assume thats what you mean by “specie to specie” evolution. I did not say there hasn’t been enough time for macro evolution, I was put putting words in your mouth for sarcastic effect.
I’m still not clear on what you think prevents micro from becoming macro. If it’s just the young earth not having offered enough time, that’s sort of an admission that it is possible but less likely than in an old earth model. If it’s some other mechanism preventing micro from becoming macro, it’s not clear what.
I’m sorry I was dismissive of your view. It’s old ground that’s become contemptible with familiarity. … or so I thought. I have only come across the term being used as a sort of straw man to be refuted. The first couple pages of a google query on (”peer reviewed” “macro evolution”) is almost entirely ID debate. I hate to admit it, but as soon as I saw the term, I stopped thinking.
Contrary to what I said earlier, biologists do use the term to refer to evolutionary changes “at or above the level of species”. Which has been observed many times. For example, domestic sheep can no longer breed with their ancestral undomesticated line. ( Nowak, R. (1999) Walker’s Mammals of the World 6th ed. ) It has even been accomplished in the lab without resorting to hybridization by imposing opposite selection pressures on two groups of a single fast-breeding species. ( Rice, W.R. and G.W. Salt (1988). “Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence”. )
Why do you say that most scientists think we are out of time? We are (most probably) out of time to stop the melt of the polar caps, but that’s a mere multi-bazillion-dollar inconvenience. Nothing to go selling all your property and all those other things Jesus said to do over. Unless you live on the coast. Yes, the world is falling apart (don’t point, it’ll happen to you one day), but its hardly middle-aged yet.
I’m going to have to take your word for it on the salt thing. What I have read this afternoon from the U.S. Geological Survey tells me that the salinity of the oceans is relatively constant overall, but varies up and down slightly with time, and varies much more with local geography and latitude. Perhaps your friends were concerned with a short term change in salinity in a specific place rather than with the oceans worldwide? At any rate, this isn’t an area I know much about.
As for the moon… Geeze, how much dust do you want?! There are no forces of erosion to grind down rock like on Earth and some other planets, there are only comparatively rare impact events and landslides to create it. Some of the dust will be ejected by impact, some of it will be stripped by solar wind (because the dust carries an electrical charge). NASA considers the quantity of dust found on the moon to be consistent with their model, what do you know that they don’t?
Texasinafrica — Thanks, I know that Christiandom is as hetrogenous as any other group of a couple billion humans, but its easy to forget when dealing with some of the hardcore cases.
Dozer — A pig is a very intelligent, affectionate, sturdy and handsome creature. I’ve been called worse by my own wife. I’m not sure what I was supposed to get out of that bible passage. That I am to care for the sick, needy, destitute and deprived, etc? I don’t need Jesus to tell me that. If the only criteria for getting into heaven is that I have to treat the least among us as I would Jesus, well score one for me cos I’m IN! I’m all for progressive tax, social welfare, state-funded education and health care, and all the rest of that pinko commie crap. I’m forever complaining to my capitalist friends that they evaluate cultural and political models based on the wealth of the most successful individuals while ignoring the suffering of the least. I guess I failed to notice your pearls just now, but that’s okay; I have truffles.
TIA,
Well, Dembski and his complex math couldn’t quite capture my attention. He’s annoying and takes too much pleasure in the controversy that he and his work have caused. And I’m no fan of anyone who teams up with Ann Coulter.
I agree with Kevin’s original point as I understand it. It seems the more “liberal” elements in society like to protest the views of more “conservative” types. Meanwhile if the more “conservative” folk protest or even speak against something on the more “liberal” side it is immediately labeled as “hate speech”. George Orwell had a smaller imagination than we ever thought.
I won’t weigh in to heavily on the Creation/Intelligent Design versus Evolution debate other than to say these two quick things.
1) I think groups like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research do a good job arguing for the Creation/ID position from both a scientific, philosophical and a Biblical position.
2) About two years ago when the State Education Agency here in Texas was doing textbook reviews there were groups representing both sides of the argument. I found it interesting that the Creation/Intelligent Design groups came and argued their position based upon scientific grounds. The Evolution supporters did a lot of talking about faith instead.
Hi, Kev! The missing link lives in my state. It is a mammal which lays eggs. It lactates, but the milk seeps through its skin. It has 10 sex chromosomes, and its DNA is avian.
God was VERY drunk when he created the platypus
Whooo! I forgot to add that it has claws and webbed feet, and the male has a very nasty poisonous spur and that its gait is reptilian, ie, the legs are positioned at its sides, instead of beneath.
Yes, very, very drunk on that day in 4004 BC!!
Hey Geekwad has truffles….party at Geekwad’s!!!!!
I like pigs 2. My 3 favorite things about pigs….
1. They are so diverse. Each and every one tastes like my favorite meat…. Bacon, Ham, BBQ, Ribs, Pork Chips….
2. They are intelligent. Proof: Arnold Ziffle…. (and he is from my state.)
3. The males have 30 minute orgasms.
I like how the early church was into all that pinko commie stuff too. That’s cool Geekwad that you’d know that.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
Jesus is cool with me. He’s far left (by modern American standards, but also a genuine liberal), he’s popularly depicted as a dirty hippie, he appreciates simple clothing, and he’s not afraid to speak truth to power. He’s a jewish Ghandi! To be honest, I wonder what the mostly conservative American Christian community sees in him.
Geekwad,
You make a good point. What I see in Jesus is someone who completely transformed my life. I have hope for tomorrow & I live in victory today. I am changing every day to become more like Him.
A similar museum has just opened in Canada.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/email/idUKN2547663920070529
At only 300K, and with the advantage of the press the other one is getting, it should be simple to turn a tidy profit for a while.
In what way are you like Jesus, Kevin? Do you raise the dead, heal lepers and feed multitudes? Just kidding.
But seriously, in what way are you like him?
Francoise,
Can I speak for Kevin, as an outsider looking on? I promise I am not a Bussey Groupie.
5 ways how Kevin is like Jesus…
1. His mission in life is drawing people to God. Freely he received and freely he gives of his time and energy because ain’t one of us been asked to pay to post our comments here. How much time does it take to do this each week? That is a labor of love.
2. He engages people in conversation where they are at, not condemning their choices or lifestyle, but remaining true and unwavering in his convictions.
3. He loves others that some ‘religious leaders’ shun. We have homosexuals, as well as athiests like you involved on this blog and you are all welcome.
4. He is not about being served, but to serve (trip to Nawlins…nuff said)
5. He would rather pursue peace with Geekwad rather than hollaring back at him.
Kevin….Love you man…Wish I could meet you.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
Peple pay to have messages posted??? That’s a new one!
Your description of Kevin matches that of my Sufi teacher, and Buddhists I’ve known. Kindness and generosity are fine, but they are not qualities which are unique to followers of a certain religion.
But thanks fort asnwering. Perhaps KB would like to give it a shot, as well?
Andrew,
Thanks for the kind words.
Francoise,
What do you want me to say? I’m not Jesus and never will be. I’m just grateful that I don’t have to be. I’m not going to brag about me. I will brag about a God who saved me from myself. I will praise the God who gave me eternal life. I will give glory to the God who has given me abundant life here on earth. I miss the mark everyday but I have the Holy Spirit living in me and that is the only way I can even attempt to be like Christ.
Well, you said you were becoming more like him, so I was curious as to what that meant. You tend to be plain -spoken, and Jesus spoke in riddles. I cannot imagine you belting people with a whip, or telling people that they must hate their families, or stating that you are all about sowing divisions, or referring to people as “dogs”etc etc
Hang on Francoise,
Jesus didn’t speak in riddles. He speaks plainly. God wants HIS word communicated clearly so that we can know HIM intimately. He speaks plainly to those who seek HIM desiring to be with HIM. We aren’t robots as in we are free to choose. Granted the bible doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to anyone without the passionate personal pursuit of God. To us who are being saved, it is life.
Belting and Whipping? He was a defender of the defenseless. What you interpret as merely a violent outburst, was running the cheating money changers from the temple who were exploiting people in the ‘business’ of religion making a profit from worship. That would be like people selling tickets to a Christian Worship Band performance…. selling ‘worship’ only to those who can afford the ticket. It is as wrong today as it was 2000 years ago. The money changers doing so prevented already oppressed poor people the right to draw close and worship God. God doesn’t wink. ‘Christian’ artists, musicians and writers instead of seeking corporate sponsors would do well to read about the late Keith Green. Freely he was given the gospel, and freely he gave.
Jesus also did not command people to hate their families. Quite the opposite. We are to love all others above ourselves. We are simply to love God before any other. God knowing the selfishness of people made it plain that If others (family friends etc.) had issues with your commitment to follow Jesus, then so be it, we are to love God.
You also must realize by now that what we have today is only a “translation” of the bible from the original language. Pompous as some English speaking people are, English is not the best language by any stretch. As far as Jesus calling people dogs, the actual word in the language as it was written was not dogs, but puppy. Her response was, ‘even puppies eat the crumbs that fall from the table.’
In Christ
Andrew \o/
BTW…I have said it before…the difference between Christianity and other religions….other religions say you can achieve, attain or already possess what you need to go to heaven, nirvannah… whatever….
Chrstianity is the only ‘religion’ that will say man is hopeless and there is nothing you can do that will save you except place your trust in Jesus.
Was that plainly spoken?
Andrew